Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.74 seconds)
Documents citing Smt. Mankunwar Bai And Ors. vs Sunderlal Jain on 14 February, 1978

Shri Vinod Kumar Gosalia vs Shri Frank Silva Lobo Norton on 22 November, 1983

However, the aforesaid rulings of the Madhya Pradesh High Court are based entirely on the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Act, It is, therefore, expedient to advert to the relevant provisions of the aforesaid Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. Section 12(l)(a) of the said Act provides that no suit shall be filed in any Civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except inter alia when the tenant has not paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been served on him by the landlord. Sub-section (3) of Section 12 lays down that no order for eviction of a tenant shall be made on the ground specified in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1), if the tenant makes payment or deposit as required by Section 13 and Section 13(1) provides that on a suit or proceeding being instituted by the landlord on any of the ground referred to in Section 12, the tenant shall, within one month of the service of writ of summons on him or within such further time as the Court may, on an application made to it, allow in this behalf, deposit in the Court or pay to the landlord an amount calculated at the rate of rent at which it was paid for the period for which the tenant may have made default including the period subsequent thereto upto the end of the month previous to that in which the deposit or payment is made; and shall thereafter continue to deposit or pay, month by month, by the 15th of each succeeding month a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate. It was in the context of the aforesaid provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Act that the aforesaid High Court has held in the case of Mankunwar Bai v. Sunderlal Jain (supra) that under Section 13(1) of the said Act it is not necessary for the tenant to pay to the landlord or deposit in Court the amount of arrears of rent, the recovery of which has been barred by limitation and, as such, irrecoverable by the landlord. The reason for so holding was that Section 13(1) has been enacted to afford to the tenant a further opportunity to pay arrears of rent, although he has committed default when the notice of demand was served on him. Now, it is to be noted that the provision similar to some extent to that section of the Madhya Pradesh Act has been introduced by way of the amendment in our Act. The said provision is Sub-section (3). However, while considering all the aspects of the case, as already observed, the legislature, while introducing in Sub-section (2) (a) in the amended Section 22(2) (a) of the Act the expression "legally recoverable", has deliberately omitted such expression in the new Sub-section (3) and has used the expression "rent due". This being so, it appears manifest that the legislature, while intending to give a fresh opportunity to the tenant to avoid his eviction, nevertheless did not intend to enlarge the benefit to the extent of making him free to pay only the legally recoverable rent. On the contrary, it appears that the legislature intended to cause the tenant to pay a price for the fresh opportunity given to him to avoid his eviction, and the price was to deposit or pay all the rents which were due by him.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vinod Kumar Gosalia And Ors. vs Frank Silva Lobo Norton And Ors. on 11 October, 1984

In support of this appeal he places reliance in the decision of Smt. Mankunwar Bai v. Sunderlal Jain, reported in All India Rent Control Journal, Vol. 1 1978 at page 518. This is a Full Bench decision which lays down that a tenant is not obliged to deposit time barred rent under section 13(1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. Shri Usgaorcar brought to our attention that in the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 various grounds of eviction have been mentioned under section 12. However, ground (a) is of significance which according to him is more or less akin to ground 22(2)(a) of the Goa Act. One can advantageously refer to ground (a) of section 12 the M.P. Act which reads as under :---
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Smt. Lalita Rani vs Shri R.K. Gandhi (Deceased Through Lrs) on 30 August, 2012

37. However, as per the provisions of of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, in case a tenant is evicted for non­payment of rent under Section 14(1)(a) of of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, he has to be given a chance for payment of arrears of rent so as to enable him to avail the benefit under Section 14(2) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. As per the case of the petitioner, the rent has not been paid since March, 2002 and legal demand notice is dated 17.7.2006. It is settled law that even for the purpose of Section 14(1)(a) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, a landlord can claim only legally recoverable rent and rent which is barred by limitation cannot be claimed by the landlord. Reference in this regard may be made to the cases of Kamala Bakshi Vs. Khairati Lal 2000 (1) RCR (Rent) 400 (SC), Hari Shanker Saxena Vs. Sarla Devi & Ors. 1970 RCR 36, Satyendra Kumar Vs. Ramchandra Murthy 1975 RCR 320, Mankunwar Bai Vs. Sunderlal Jain 1978 (1) RCJ 249, Daulat Ram Vs. Som Nath 1981 (1) RCJ 220 (Delhi) wherein it has been observed as under :­ "The expression 'legally recoverable' means rent for the recovery of which there is no legal bar. One such bar may be the expiry of the period of limitation, as the expiry of the period of limitation E.No.1262/2006 Page No. 31 of 34 prescribed by law bars the recovery of the said amount. Therefore, it has to be held that the words 'arrears of rent legally recoverable' means arrears of rent which are not barred by limitation."
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Manju Seth vs Shri Baldev Kalra on 26 March, 2013

31. However, as per the provisions of of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, in case a tenant is evicted for non­payment of rent under Section 14(1)(a) of of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, he has to be given a chance for payment of arrears of rent so as to enable him to avail the benefit under Section 14(2) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. As per the case of the petitioner, the rent has not been paid 1.1.2009 and legal demand notice is dated 31.10.2011 and the present petition has been filed on 16.4.2012. It is settled law that even for the purpose of Section 14(1)(a) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, a landlord can claim only legally recoverable rent and rent which is barred by limitation cannot E.No.32/2012 Page No. 18 of 20 be claimed by the landlord. Reference in this regard may be made to the cases of Kamala Bakshi Vs. Khairati Lal 2000 (1) RCR (Rent) 400 (SC), Hari Shanker Saxena Vs. Sarla Devi & Ors. 1970 RCR 36, Satyendra Kumar Vs. Ramchandra Murthy 1975 RCR 320, Mankunwar Bai Vs. Sunderlal Jain 1978 (1) RCJ 249, Daulat Ram Vs. Som Nath 1981 (1) RCJ 220 (Delhi) wherein it has been observed as under :­ "The expression 'legally recoverable' means rent for the recovery of which there is no legal bar. One such bar may be the expiry of the period of limitation, as the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed by law bars the recovery of the said amount. Therefore, it has to be held that the words 'arrears of rent legally recoverable' means arrears of rent which are not barred by limitation."
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Heera Traders vs Kamla Jain on 22 February, 2022

14. Respondent relies upon decision of the Full Bench in Mankunwar Bai and others v. Sunderlal Jain10. The question, which arose was, whether the tenant was obliged to pay time-barred rent under the first part of Section 13(1) of the Act. No doubt, the Court was dealing with Section 13 prior to substitution in 1983. The Court went on to hold that the tenant is not liable to deposit the time-barred arrears of rent, particularly having regard to the requirement in Section 12(1)(a) that the arrears of rent must be legally recoverable from the tenant. In the course of the said Judgment, the Court held that the expression, “the period for which the tenant may have made default”, as pointed out above, refers to the default under Section 12(1)(a).
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 1 - K Joseph - Full Document

Shri Om Nath Sharma vs Shri Bhan Singh on 3 July, 2013

10. As per the case of the petitioner, the rent has not been paid since 1995 and legal demand notice is dated 19.3.2012 and the present petition has been filed on 23.8.2012. It is settled law that even for the purpose of Section 14(1)(a) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, a landlord can claim only legally E­81/2012 Page No.4 of 6 recoverable rent and rent which is barred by limitation cannot be claimed by the landlord. Reference in this regard may be made to the cases of Kamala Bakshi Vs. Khairati Lal 2000 (1) RCR (Rent) 400 (SC), Hari Shanker Saxena Vs. Sarla Devi & Ors. 1970 RCR 36, Satyendra Kumar Vs. Ramchandra Murthy 1975 RCR 320, Mankunwar Bai Vs. Sunderlal Jain 1978 (1) RCJ 249, Daulat Ram Vs. Som Nath 1981 (1) RCJ 220 (Delhi) wherein it has been observed as under :­ "The expression 'legally recoverable' means rent for the recovery of which there is no legal bar. One such bar may be the expiry of the period of limitation, as the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed by law bars the recovery of the said amount. Therefore, it has to be held that the words 'arrears of rent legally recoverable' means arrears of rent which are not barred by limitation."
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next